The part about what comes after it including levels and EQ. Did you watch the video?
Shoot out: Reel to Reel Comparison to Direct Digital Recording
- Thread starter amirm
- Start date
I too agree with you. So we both disagree with that musician on that aspect. ...He's happy of the "manipulated" recording, not me.
My own best music playing/recordings are not manipulated...no reverb, no digital delay, no sustain, no compression, no distortion added, no 'flanging', no tremolo, no wah-wah, no dynamic range congestion, no parametric/graphic EQ, no digital Room correction, no nothing else than pure unadulterated naturalness.
Every time you alter/touch the sound from its natural environment the farther away you are from the essence of the moment in time and in space.
When you go to a classical ballet concert @ the hall, the musicians don't use guitar pedals and dynamic compressors. Same with the opera singers and organ music with choirs @ your local churches.
The venue, be it the street, a train tunnel, a cavern, a jazz club, a blues alley, a theater, a concert hall, ...is all the "digital/analog effect" to put you right in the middle of the true emotional state of ecstasy and complete vibrating freedom. This ain't no Pink Floyd digital effect, it's raw acoustics. ...And don't put any echoes in that Adele's voice or you won't make it to the next street's corner. ...Where the coffee house is and with all the musicians in it where they all hang out, including the chess players.
There are more analog vs digital threads than pizza shops.
The comparison of 2 recordings made simultaneously onto tape and bits has little value to me. What I care about are the best sources available for the albums I like. I have a good number of master protection copies on 2 track 15 ips reels and they are by far better sounding than any comparable digital (DSD, hi res) or vinyl. It is not even close.
The comparison of 2 recordings made simultaneously onto tape and bits has little value to me. What I care about are the best sources available for the albums I like. I have a good number of master protection copies on 2 track 15 ips reels and they are by far better sounding than any comparable digital (DSD, hi res) or vinyl. It is not even close.
for years Reference Recordings had 2 mic feeds feeding both the PM2 and the RTR deck. his levels and EQ are what they are for each venue. those specifics don't invalidate the format comparison or lean it one way or another. they do the opposite; they optimize both.
I have 4 different RR recordings on tape, 2 of which were prior to him adding the PM2, and 2 after he added the PM2.
both those after where I can directly compare the tape to the 176/24 clearly favor the tape.
all the mastering for all these recordings were done by Paul Subblebine. you can ask him anything you want. I have.
This is abso!utely normal for an audio forum. :b
I'm with you. * Do you have Pink Flood - "Atomic Heart Mother" on open-reel tape? ...And also Yes - "Tales From Topographic Oceans" - Undercurrent?
Sorry for any typo, it was voluntary.
soon there will be a native Quad dsd file and a 15ips 1/4" tape and, I'm told, a 15ips 1/2" tape from the same mic feed of the 'Wave Kinetics' Ilia Iten Debussy solo piano recording made in upstate New York last spring.
I already have a sample of the native Quad dsd file (and a native dsd128 file too); it's amazing. can't wait to compare it to the tape.
I already have a sample of the native Quad dsd file (and a native dsd128 file too); it's amazing. can't wait to compare it to the tape.
Perused the thread and haven't noticed any poster observation that the deck-under-test is quarter-track.
A decently sorted and aligned half-track deck may have made for a different sonic impression.
...And a Nagra digital recording machine. ...Or Trinnov.
Yes, that's what I meant; very not easy to find them on open-reel tapes. And to me this is essential listening, both of them;, CDs, LPs, BR Audios, DVD Audios, Multichannel SACDs, hi-res downloads, ...it don't really matter because whoever has them on R-2-R tapes (stereo) is a very lucky sunnabaggun.
________
________
<<<>>> Open-reel music tapes recorded in multichannel sound?
________
That one below on open-reel tape, really!
Last edited:
This is not any old analog versus digital. It is R2R tape versus digital with a very nicely done capture of acoustic guitar.
The problem with this kind of opinion is that we can't share or participate in it. With the video we call all hear the same thing and express our opinions from a common presentation. There are many people with opinions that we can't validate to see if they translate to us or not.
Reminds me of Erik's thesis on Musicology. I wish more WBF members would help him with it, by doing the simple music test samplings.
And then by reporting to him by PMs. This is one of my best contributions so far here, this year, before Christmas 2015.
? http://www.whatsbestforum.com/showt...eed-your-ears-in-sound-preferences-evaluation
Trinnov
Well, they don't have one...so good reason to build one. :b ...A Trinnov digital recording machine.
I get it, but I guess I don't understand what's the real question being asked. People will use the results of the video comparison and extrapolate it to the universe of digital vs. reel. If the sole question is "which source sounded better in this particular experiment", fine. But it never seems to end there.
Finally watched the video. Like most of us, I could tell that the 2nd recording was the analog one in about 5 seconds. It has less crispness than the first. I would like to get into his studio and listen to each of the recordings in their native form to really do a fair comparison.
Thanks for sharing the video. I enjoyed it.
Thanks for sharing the video. I enjoyed it.
I guessed the recordings correctly as the video was rolling, w/o scrolling back and forth. The digital clearly lacks "roundness" in the bottom end as he says - a problem I hear with every digital system I have ever heard, and a clear tell-tale sign - and the transients are clearly snappier than his tape. The tape, on the other hand, is rounder, some notes resonate unnaturally (sound bloated; probably the electronics in the deck), and transients are softer (probably the internal electronics again). Overall, I preferred his digital.
Question: in this video and example, which sound more closely matched the original? I know none of us were there to hear the original but I am going to ask the question anyway .
.Similar threads
